"Any person" includes accused person also.

This revision petition raises the question regarding the power of the Magistrate to direct an accused person to appear in Court and give specimen hand-writing and signature in the course of investigation of a case by the Police. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 9 of 1965 registered by the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Trivandrum for offences of cheating, forgery, etc. The petitioner appeared before Court on 4th May, 1965 and was enlarged on bail. Subsequently on 25th June, 1965, the investigating officer presented a petition before the Additional First. Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, that as the handwriting and signature of the accused have to be sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison and opinion, the Court may summon the petitioner and take the specimen writing and signature both in English and Malayalam in 10 different slips of paper. When summons was received the petitioner appeared through Counsel and opposed the application on the ground that under section 73 of the Evidence Act the Court can direct any person present in Court to write words or figures to enable the Court to compare the same with words or figures alleged to have been written by such person and this stage would be reached only after charge-sheet had been filed and the trial had started. The objection was over-ruled and the Magistrate passed orders directing the petitioner to appear in Court, on 15th July, 1965, for the purpose of taking this specimen handwriting and signature as sought for by the Police.

The question that arises here for decision is not whether the direction given by the Court infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution as that question has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kelu Oghad1, where it was held that there is no infringement of Article 20(3) if an accused person is directed under section 73 of the Evidence Act to give his specimen handwriting and signature. The question before us is whether the Magistrate has powers under section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct an accused who is on bail to appear in Court and give specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of investigation of the case by the Police.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act (XXXIII of 1920) would not apply. Section 5 authorises a Magistrate to direct any person to allowhis measurements or photograph to be taken if he is satisfied that it is expedient for the purpose.

1. (1963) 1 S.C.J. 195: (1963) M.L.J. (Crl.) 97: (1962) 3 S.C.R. 10: 64 Bom.L.R. 240: A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1308. of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure to do so. ‘Measurements’ include finger impressions and foot-print impressions. If any such person who is directed by a Magistrate under section 5 of the Act to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken resists or refuses to allow the taking of measurements or photograph it has been declared lawful by section 6 to use all necessary means to secure the taking of the required measurements or photographs. But taking specimen handwriting would not come within this Act and we have to go to section 73 of the Evidence Act.

That section reads:

“In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.”

The words “any person” in t